GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-05 > 1179614199
From: Lept OMagnoid <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] The Basques and Scholarship
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Sorry about those ads, everyone, but imagevenue has the virtue of being very reliable, with pictures staying up for a very long time, and everyone being able to see them. I've used their service for so long that I didn't even notice these particular ads. They must change frequently.
But neither this nor my perfectly harmless anthropological classification thread, posted at one of the least racist forums I can think of which features such a classification subforum, allow you to ignore the linguistic evidence against the Basque Hypothesis.
I think it's time that population geneticists learn a little linguistic theory, archaeology and physical anthropology before they go on using any more terminology from those disciplines, such as Proto-Indo-European, Kurgan and Cro-Magnon. The works of Oppenheimer and others are so unscholarly they're shocking.
This kind of phenomenon is not new, however. We even had one in linguistics in the sixties, when the Chomskyan school came in using radically new methods. And what happened was the same - they came to prominence so quickly that, within a few years, they were able to publish at will any unverifiable claims they liked, misleading initiates unchecked.
I see your Wells, Sykes and Oppenheimer rather like traditional linguists saw and still see Noam Chomsky - I see them as sensationalists.
Perhaps you aren't so bad here, and beneath the sensationalists in status there exist real scholars, trying their best. Is this true?
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
|Re: [DNA] The Basques and Scholarship by Lept OMagnoid <>|